The Stanford Binet fourth edition and its use with individuals with Down syndrome: Cautions for clinicians

Couzens, Donna, Cuskelly, Monica and Jobling, Anne (2004) The Stanford Binet fourth edition and its use with individuals with Down syndrome: Cautions for clinicians. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51 1: 39-56. doi:10.1080/1034912042000182193


Author Couzens, Donna
Cuskelly, Monica
Jobling, Anne
Title The Stanford Binet fourth edition and its use with individuals with Down syndrome: Cautions for clinicians
Journal name International Journal of Disability, Development and Education   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1034-912X
1465-346X
Publication date 2004
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1080/1034912042000182193
Volume 51
Issue 1
Start page 39
End page 56
Total pages 18
Editor C. van Kraayenoord
Place of publication United Kingdom
Publisher Routledge
Collection year 2004
Subject C1
380105 Social and Community Psychology
750305 Ability and disability
Abstract Stanford Binet: Fourth Edition (SB:IV) assessments have been collected longitudinally for 195 individuals with Down syndrome. This article discusses individual assessments which were selected for their ability to highlight major concerns that practitioners need to consider when interpreting intelligence test scores with this population. In this study, Intelligence Quotient (IQ) changed substantially for many individuals, demonstrating changes in classification from a mild level of intellectual impairment on initial assessment to a severe level on later assessment. Subtests used in calculating composite scores were found to have a dramatic effect on IQ. There was up to 9 IQ points difference depending on whether only the “core” subtests or all subtests used by the assessor were included in the calculations. Thirty-seven percent of the assessments were at “floor level” (i.e., IQ of 36), despite obvious divergent abilities illustrated by age equivalent scores. Mean Age Equivalent (MAE) scores were also problematic as they failed to adequately represent either the range, or divergence, of abilities of the individuals whose data are presented. Directions for future research are discussed.
Q-Index Code C1

 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Wed, 15 Aug 2007, 04:55:50 EST